Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Route 66 National Historic Trail Designation Act
A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5668; text: CR S5668-5669)
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Awaiting House
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill amends the National Trails System Act to officially designate the Route 66 National Historic Trail. The trail spans approximately 2,400 miles from Chicago, Illinois, to Santa Monica, California, covering all U.S. Highway 66 alignments in existence between 1926 and 1985. The Secretary of the Interior is tasked with administering the trail while respecting its idiosyncratic nature. The legislation includes specific protections ensuring that private property rights and energy development activities are not disrupted by the new designation. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of eminent domain or condemnation for acquiring land for the trail.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners along Route 66 benefit from the increased visibility and tourism that comes with the official designation.
- Scored +3
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill mandates active, meaningful, and timely consultation with affected Indian Tribes regarding activities with substantial direct impacts.
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Provides economic opportunities via tourism while protecting rural property rights and energy interests.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(C)(ii): The Secretary of the Interior is required to conduct active, meaningful, and timely consultation with all affected Indian Tribes prior to undertaking any trail activities that would have substantial direct impacts on them, which positively protects tribal sovereignty and coordination.
-
Section 2(D): Private landowners are protected because the United States cannot acquire land for the trail outside of federally managed areas without the explicit consent of the property owner.
-
Section 2(F): The bill explicitly states that the trail designation or any management plans will not prohibit, hinder, or disrupt the development, production, transportation, or transmission of energy, which helps protect jobs and energy supplies.
-
Section 2(G): The Secretary of the Interior is explicitly barred from using eminent domain or condemnation to carry out the trail designation, ensuring everyday citizens do not lose their land against their will.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners along Route 66 benefit from the increased visibility and tourism that comes with the official designation. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill mandates active, meaningful, and timely consultation with affected Indian Tribes regarding activities with substantial direct impacts. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides economic opportunities via tourism while protecting rural property rights and energy interests. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural landowners benefit from protections against eminent domain and interference with energy development.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increased tourism typically benefits small businesses, such as diners and motels, along the trail. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Tourism associated with the historic trail designation may boost local economies along the route. Is this likely to create jobs? — Designating a national historic trail can increase tourism and local economic activity.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The designation promotes tourism and economic visibility for rural towns along the Route 66 corridor. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill establishes a formal administrative framework for the Route 66 National Historic Trail.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly protects private property rights and prohibits eminent domain for the trail designation.
The version one chamber actually passed
What changed from Reported to Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 11/12/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5668; text: CR S5668-5669)
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee without amendment. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 644.
- 7/29/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 7/21/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
- 4/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/18/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Eric SchmittRepublican · Missouri